Media Releases

JOHANNESBURG – Justice
Project South Africa has noted that the Minister of Transport, Ms Dipuo
Elizabeth Peters is once again giving motorists an “early Christmas present” by
regurgitating
threats she levelled at them around this time last year, as well as making
additional ones in Parliament.

Last year, the Minister
and the CEO of the RTMC threatened delinquent drivers, in particular those who
drive at speeds above the speed limit and those who are under the influence of
alcohol with extended periods of incarceration prior to being released on bail to
be tried in a criminal court and this year the Minister appears to be doing
exactly the same thing. This comes in spite of her assertions last year to the
effect that the Department of Transport was working closely with the Department
of Justice to urgently have these crimes rescheduled to Schedule 5 offences
under the Criminal Procedure Act. This year she is levelling the same threats
and making the same assertions – thereby indicating that no progress has been
made in that regard, probably because of the pure absurdity of it all.

In addition, it would
appear that some “road safety commentators” are blaming the Department of
Justice for the incredibly low conviction rate of those charged with driving
under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug having a narcotic effect
by saying that “the department of justice did not take the prosecution of road
offenders seriously”.

This is a very dangerous
and somewhat foolish assertion to be making, given the fact that there is a lot
more to convicting a person who is alleged to have been under the influence of
alcohol than simply arresting them and it would appear that both, the Minister
and these “road safety commentators” are unaware of this fact.

Whilst JPSA has an inherent
and vehement dislike for those who do drive whilst they are intoxicated, it is
also acutely aware of the fact that proper evidence is a fundamental
requirement in criminal trials and it is and remains unhelpful that blood test
results from the State run laboratories typically take ages to come back, if
indeed they ever do come back.

Simultaneously, JPSA is a
big fan of a piece of legislation called “the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa” which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land and holds
that “every accused person has the right to be presumed innocent [until proven
guilty]”. The South African Police Service (SAPS) standard operational
procedures (SOPs) already dictate that a person who is arrested for an offence
involving alcohol must be detained for a minimum of four hours before being
released on bail and in reality, such detention periods easily exceed three
times that. The release on bail is not
to be viewed as a fine or as constituting
the excusing of such an accuse person from the crime they stand accused of, but
to be exactly what it is – a warning to appear in court to be tried for that
crime.

What is vitally important
is that, particularly with DUI offences and in order for people to take the
prosecution therefor seriously, the matter must be dealt with swiftly and those
who are convicted must “feel the
pinch”. To suggest, as the Minister does, that accused persons should be
punished prior to even seeing the inside of a court is quite simply absurd and
is tantamount to adopting principles which have no regard for due process, the
criminal justice system and/or the Constitution.

The second threat arising
from the Minister of Transport comes in the form of prosecution for “civil
disobedience” towards e-tolls, as was levelled in her reply to a question
in Parliament. Again, it is noted that the Minister chooses to engage in threats
against the citizens of this country instead of seeking proper resolution to
the problem.

The State is fully
entitled to prosecute so-called “e-tolls offenders” but must remain mindful of
Section 9(1) of the Bill of Rights under the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, 1996 which holds that “Everyone is equal before the law…”. If it
is the Minister’s and SANRAL’s intention to prosecute so-called “e-tolls offenders”
for “civil disobedience”, then they must prosecute all, over 2 million “offenders”
and not simply “cherry pick” a few select “offenders” like has been done with
the “civil summonses” which have now suddenly gone quiet, or the single
prosecution for licence plate fraud which took place under the Criminal
Procedure Act.

We are sure that the
South African Post Office will welcome the additional revenue which will arise
out of the posting well in excess of 2 million AARTO infringement notices by “secure
mail” daily and SANRAL need not worry about this expenditure being seen to be
irregular by the Auditor General since the SAPO will surely bill them and in so
doing, bail the SAPO out of the financial hole it is in. Therefore SANRAL need
not worry too much about being chased out of Parliament by SCOPA for not coming
prepared again.

The carnage on South
Africa’s roads is a serious matter and should be tackled with all of the vigour
and seriousness it deserves. However, taking short-cuts, ignoring the very real
problems and engaging in threats is not the way to go about it. If and when the
Department of Transport, the Minister and the traffic authorities alike wake up
and begin to understand that professionalism and addressing the real underlying
problems will go a long way to curing the ills which play themselves out on our
roads daily, then and only then will changes in the behaviour of motorists (and
other road users) start to come about. In the meantime however, people have
become less and less sensitive to the repeated threats levelled by the Minister
and others in her employ.

JPSA urges motorists to adopt a responsible
approach and to avoid breaking the law. There is simply no excuse for drink/drug
driving and in the process, putting everyone’s safety at risk.

JOHANNESBURG – On Friday 11 November 2016, the Minister of Transport promulgated amendments to the National Road Traffic Regulations which must be noted by motorists – in particular those who operate goods vehicles.

Firstly, Government Gazette 40420 of 11 November 2016 amended Regulation 250, which previously forbade the conveyance of persons for reward in the goods compartment of goods vehicles (bakkies) in its entirety to read as follows:

(1)No person shall on a public road convey school children in the goods compartment of a motor vehicle for reward.

(2)No person shall convey any other person in the goods compartment of a motor vehicle for reward: Provided that the provisions of this subregulation shall not apply in respect of a vehicle which complies with the provisions of the NLTA.

Simply put, these amendments mean that transport operators who successfully acquire a public transportation permit in terms of the National Land Transport Act, 2009 (Act 5 of 2009) may convey persons in the goods compartment of bakkies, etc. for reward but under no circumstances is the conveyance of school children in the goods compartment of bakkies, etc. for reward allowed.

It is not clear how school children will be accommodated in rural areas with poor quality roads, which are inaccessible to buses, minibuses and the like.

The provisions of Regulation 250 above will come into effect from 11 May 2017.

The second Regulation which was inserted was subregulation (iv) of Regulation 293 which has, with immediate effect, imposed a vehicle class specific speed limit of 100km/h on goods vehicles with a gross vehicle mass (GVM) or gross combination mass (GCM) which is greater than 3,500kg but less than 9,000kg as follows:

(iv) (aa) a goods vehicle the gross vehicle mass of which exceeds 3 500 kilograms but does not exceed 9 000 kilograms; or

(bb) a combination of motor vehicles consisting of a goods vehicle, being the drawing vehicle, and one or two trailers of which the sum of the gross vehicle mass of the goods vehicle and of the trailer or trailers exceeds 3 500 kilograms but does not exceed 9 000 kilograms.

Simply put, this means that goods vehicles with a gross vehicle mass (GVM) or gross combination mass (GCM) which is greater than 3,500kg may not exceed 100km/h, regardless of whether the prescribed speed limit or general speed limit which may apply is greater than 100km/h – for example on a freeway. It does not mean that such vehicles may drive at up to 100km/h wherever they wish.

The vehicle class specific speed limits applicable to goods vehicles with a GVM or GCM of more than 9,000kg and a breakdown which is towing another vehicle of 80km/h remains in force. The vehicle class specific speed limit for a bus, a minibus or a midibus operating in terms of an operating licence, as well as a rapid transport bus and a rapid transport bus-train of 100km/h also remains in force.

Just how of if these speed limits will be enforced remains to be seen since most of the speed limit prosecution which takes place nationwide is done using speed cameras which have an upper limit set on them before they trigger, and thus tend to catch only those who exceed 130km/h where they are deployed on freeways.

Nonetheless, fleet owners who operate goods vehicles which fall under the criteria above are advised to inform their drivers that this amendment has taken place and that no “grace period” exists since these provisions became effective on 11 November 2016.

JOHANNESBURG – Following the concerns raised
by the Automobile Association of South Africa (AA) this morning regarding the
public spat between OUTA and SANRAL concerning civil legal action on unpaid
e-tolls bills, Justice Project South Africa wishes support the AA’s calls and
to add its concerns to the mix.

It is remarkable that despite having been
specifically named by OUTA, Werksmans Attorneys have remained silent on this
issue, even though this law firm is the only
party which can settle this dispute between SANRAL and OUTA and in so
doing, provide much-needed clarity to the motoring public.

If it is true that Werksmans Attorneys have
reached an agreement with OUTA to “stay legal action against all current and
future members of OUTA pending the outcome of a test case”, then the details of
this agreement must officially and urgently be made public.

If SANRAL asserts, as it apparently does, that
no such agreement is in place, then all it needs to do is have its legal
representatives be a party to a joint media statement with SANRAL refuting
OUTA’s claims and that will be the end of the story.

If however OUTA’s claims
turn out to be true then SANRAL would need to explain why it is misleading the
public and its legal representatives would need to explain why they are
seemingly seeking to favour OUTA members in violation of Section 9(1) of the
Bill of Rights under the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
which holds that “Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal
protection and benefit of the law”.

Furthermore, if such an agreement is in place,
then it stands to reason that no Court in South Africa would risk making a
pre-emptive ruling whilst the outcome of a test case is pending and in so
doing, violating the constitutional rights of those who are not members of
OUTA.